I've watched the first ten minutes or so - Catherine's introduction to the session and my own statement of my position (remember, we were asked not to treat this as a debate but simply to state our positions in 4 to 6 minutes ... then have a conversation led by Catherine).
I've learned a bit from watching it. I actually thought it was pretty good, probably better than I expected, although I rushed phrases at times, and lost their full effect. I'm not yet ready to debate someone as skilled as, say, William Lane Craig or Christopher Hitchens (on a subject where I disagree with him). But it's not a bad start.
Of course, I shouldn't pretend to be a complete novice at debating, since I have years of courtroom experience behind me. But the kinds of debates that we see Hitchens, etc., involved in are very different from what happens in a courtroom; they are much more dependent on concise claims, persuasive rhetoric, a confident demeanour, an attractive personal style, etc., rather than presenting and analysing evidence, possibly over days. What suits one format will not necessarily suit the other. I admire Hitchens, but I'm sure that he "wins" many debates just from his assertive demeanour and his wonderful, resonant voice.